Can you date if you don't have an annulment?

Many people who have experienced the heartbreak of divorce wish to remarry.

The Church understands this.

To be faithful to the teachings of Jesus, the Church can't simply assume that everyone who is divorced is free to remarry, and so it has the annulment process to investigate whether a person was validly married in the first place.

Some in our culture don't want to wait for an annulment before they begin dating. They go ahead and date in the expectation that they will receive an annulment.

Is this okay?

A Reader Writes

A reader writes:

Are there any official guidelines for divorced people dating before seeking an annulment?

I know someone who is doing this and claims that they aren’t "breaking any rules" by doing so.

To answer this question, I need to distinguish two different situations: Those who are waiting for a documentary process annulment and those who are hoping to obtain a ordinary process annulment.

Documentary Process Annulments

Some people are in need of what is called a "documentary process" annulment. These are cases where it is so clear that a marriage is null that all that has to be done is to present certain documents that will prove nullity.

The most common kind of annulment in this category is when Catholics (who are obliged to observe the Catholic form of marriage) get married outside the Church without a dispensation.

In these cases the nullity of the marriage is so obvious and certain that the Church does not require an extensive investigation, which is why the documentary process exists.

It is possible, even before the annulment is granted, to be certain that one is not married to one’s former spouse.

In such cases, unless there is something else affecting the situation, one is entitled to regard oneself as free to marry someone else, and it would not be automatically wrong to investigate prospective marriage partners.

Though not automatically wrong, it still could be prudent, for a variety of reasons, to get the documentary process annulment first.

Ordinary Process Annulments

Most annulment cases are not documentary process ones. They require an extensive, formal investigation, and they are known as "ordinary process" annulments.

In these cases it is not clear prior to investigation that a person is free to marry, which is why the investigation is necessary.

Such marriages are presumed valid, and parties are obliged to regard themselves as still bound to their prior spouse until such time as it is proven that the marriage was null.

So what about dating before the annulment in their case?

Canon Law

"Dating" is a phenomenon that only appears in certain cultures. As a result, one won’t find it explicitly mentioned in the Code of Canon Law.

What one will find is a canon that requires the faithful to act in communion with the Church even in their daily activities:

Can. 209 §1.

The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church.

Things that would impair their communion with the Church, such as actions not consistent with Catholic morality, violate this obligation.

Further, the Code provides:

Can. 210

All the Christian faithful must direct their efforts to lead a holy life and to promote the growth of the Church and its continual sanctification, according to their own condition.

One thus cannot get around what moral theology would say on the grounds that one isn’t "breaking any rules" that are explicitly found in canon law. Canon law itself requires people to live in a moral manner and strive for holiness.

And even if canon law didn’t say this, the fundamental moral obligations to act in accordance with one’s state of life and to pursue holiness would remain.

Beyond the question of one's obligations under canon law, there is the even more fundamental question of how dating without an annulment fares in terms of moral theology: Is it moral to be dating someone if you are divorced and don’t have an annulment?

Basic Moral Principles

Dating is a romantic activity, and it is simply inappropriate to engage in romantic activity with one person when you must regard yourself as married to another.

To do so is a violation of the Ninth Commandment (not coveting one’s neighbor’s spouse) that also puts one in danger of temptations to violate the Sixth Commandment (not committing adultery)--either mentally, physically, or both!

Apart from very unusual circumstances, those who need an ordinary process annulment must for practical purposes regard themselves as still married, and so for them dating in this condition has the same moral character as dating someone other than their spouses while still married.

Moral theology would repudiate the actions of a man who knows that he is bound to his wife yet dates another woman, and so it repudiates the actions of a man who must presume that he is bound to his wife yet dates someone else.

Not Loving

In addition, pursuing romance with someone else when you are presumed bound to another is not an act of love.

It's actually cruel.

It not only tempts you to violate your marital obligations, it tempts another person into an immoral situation as well.

It also messes with both of your feelings and–should and annulment not be forthcoming–it will lead you to the very distressing choice between continuing the relationship in violation of your moral obligations or ceasing the relationship and all the pain that will mean.

Putting another person in that kind of risk does not have that person's best interests at heart and so it is not an act of love.

It is an act of selfishness that does not care about the risk you are putting the other person in.

Bottom line: Dating when you are not clearly free to contract marriage is fundamentally disordered on multiple fronts.

Comments

@ThomasFeldman: It’s no wonder people become frustrated with this topic when hard core people keep trying to shoe horn everybody’s situation into a “one size fits all” surrounding church rules. They would have you punished for life for marrying at 22 and divorcing at 24 because both of you were immature and were never really prepared for marriage. It may not have even been a Catholic marriage or only one partner was Catholic.
Someone above even supported the insanity of your having to leave a remarriage and family of 20 years to go back to your first spouse.

In the end, if you have settled it (and made your peace with God) you’ll have to go forward as He leads you. Just make sure He is the one leading you and not some emotional desire. Learning and growing in Christ is key. If your relationship with Jesus is the same at 40 as it was at 20, then there has been no growth. Unfortunately, for some of these legalists, they’re still in 4th grade Catholic grammar school and have never graduated from childhood into adult understanding.
.
The idea that God’s grace can exist beyond the confines of church legalism is impossible for some people. But when you experience it, you know He has indeed blessed you in providing His peace—the peace that Paul says “surpasses all human understanding.” Best wishes to you, Thomas.

Posted by ThomasFeldman on Thursday, Jan 2, 2014 12:15 PM (EST):

Sorry, but I do not find this article helpful or adequate and I am looking for a more in depth answer. I am having considerable difficulty accepting the idea that everyone who is married in the eyes of the Church commits the sin of adultery by pursuing a romantic relationship with someone besides the person whom the Church recognizes as their spouse. The grounds for annulment are not mysterious. They are fairly obvious and straightforward. Tribunals seek evidence that the grounds for annulment exist and if such evidence exists they must decide that the Church no longer recognizes the marriage as valid. If a person is divorced, has been separated from their spouse for a substantial period, and has evidence that reasonably demonstrates the invalidity of their marriage based on the grounds defined by Canon Law, can their romantic involvement with another person really be equated with someone who is cheating on their spouse or having an affair? It doesn’t seem consistent with the Church’s definition of a sin. Annulments are somewhat confusing too because they essentially say that a person was never married to begin with. The sacrament was invalid. So if the sacrament was invalid, then was the couple, who presumed to be married, living in sin? I’m not sure but I believe that the answer is no, simply because they would have been ignorant that their marriage was invalid.
I have not found any good, in-depth answers to my questions. Please help me! The only place I find discussion on the issue is in some Catholic forums, but many of the responses are shallow, do not form good moral arguments, and can be frustrating.

Posted by Guest on Monday, Nov 11, 2013 7:01 PM (EST):

To Reality Bites - I was responding to Diamond, have no earthly idea what you’re talking about, but it sounds like you could use a prayer too, so I’ll put you on my Rosary prayer list as well. Your quotes taken out of context, sound byte analysis, gross assumptions, mind numbing in their lies twists and turns…I wouldn’t even know where to begin conversing with you. I will say this much, from what I gather, the doctrine of the Church, as spelled out in Catechism of the Catholic Church, appears to be something you’re not familiar with. What a few words means to me, seems to have an entirely different meaning to you, it’s as if we’re not speaking the same language. I highly recommend you obtain a copy of the book, it’s available at public libraries, and even in paperback. If you’re going to come here to engage in a meaningful dialogue with Catholics the least you can do is have enough respect to understand the faith, cover to cover so to speak, before you attack. Again, I think it’s inappropriate for the Church to be involved in these blogs, a lot of what I’ve read here is highly offensive, and not up to the standards of the Church. It was bad enough several months ago, when it was simply Catholics debating each other. Since then, the addition of anti-Catholics has added a whole new dimension, i.e. depravity, to the mix. It’s getting to be a hostile environment, unfit for a Catholic audience, or even a secular one. At the very least, these discussions should be monitored by a priest, not a lay person, with a financial incentive. I find it even more troubling that Jimmy has started a “secret” service, for readers who want to take the discussion to another level; the obvious masonic parallel is astonishing. NCRegister is getting to be a total disgrace.

Posted by ivana on Friday, Nov 8, 2013 9:46 AM (EST):

dianne and nancy, there’s nothing wrong with me and I don’t have a daughter. You must be mistaking me with the other bloggers. The person you are referring whose daughters where molested by her “second” husband’s sons. You stated that If you get to know the person before you marry he is no longer a stranger than why so many divorces? Most everyone dates before marriage and that’s not enough to know exactly how the other will be once the romantic euphoria is gone. You have to deal with future problems you didn’t forsee or have while you were dating. Most of us don’t realize that love is a form of sacrifice of giving more than taking. I married too young perhaps, I should have married at 50.

Posted by Renae on Thursday, Nov 7, 2013 1:05 PM (EST):

@dianne and Nancy,
I’m with you. As a single, never married no kids woman over 40, it is so difficult to date. I recently dated a divorced non catholic who had never even heard the word annulment until he heard it from me. Imagine trying to explain that to a baby Christian! In the end, it was just too difficult. I couldn’t put myself all in to the relationship because I knew he wasn’t really available.
And that’s why divorcees shouldn’t date until they have an annulment. It’s heartbreaking to try to love someone who is t available.

Ivana, oh goodness dear… I feel so bad for you. How do you know the next person you marry won’t be equally awful or abuse your children? You get to know them! I’m starting to think you didn’t really get to know the man you did marry, since you have the impression that people marry strangers. You do realize that once you get to know someone they are no longer a stranger, right?
Oh my gosh, get someone else in your daughter’s life, because your thought process is likely to make her neurotic and disturbed. I don’t mean to be harsh, and perhaps you’re not putting your thoughts into the words you mean, but if they are, I’m really concerned for you.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Monday, Nov 4, 2013 11:12 AM (EST):

@Invana: That’s why everyone’s situation is not the same. You should not assume all divorced people are selfish and are living in the “Hollywood mentality” you previously stated.

Posted by Ivana on Sunday, Nov 3, 2013 11:52 PM (EST):

To casting a crown. I’m not sitting on top of a perch and looking down on anyone.
I have the right to express my belief. You do what you want it’s between you and God. I’m sorry about the 10 year old been molested by her father. I also know a divorced friend who remarried and her new husband boys have sexually molested her three daughters.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Sunday, Nov 3, 2013 8:14 PM (EST):

@Ivana: [“An annulment should not be given if children are involved.”]
.
That’s a very interesting comment and a condemnatory opinion. I’m glad you don’t work for the Vatican nor have any authority. And if you found your 10 year old daughter was being sexually molested for two years by your husband?
.
But then, yours is a “Catholic” marriage and above the fray. Such things don’t happen in your narrow world. There are also Catholic marriages where one partner later changed their mind and didn’t want to have any children. You’ll have to explain why one spouse should be punished when it was the other who broke his or her vows to God and even lied before the marriage.
.
You seem to enjoy couching all divorced people into your “Hollywood” theme of selfishness. On the contrary, there are people out there with very deep wounds and real problems you would like to dismiss. It must be nice sitting atop your perch looking down upon people with your moral and religious superiority.

Posted by Ivana on Sunday, Nov 3, 2013 9:25 AM (EST):

An annulment should not be given if children are involved. A legal separation is recognized by the church. You cannot based happiness on the suffering of the other partner. The problem today is selfishness. I grew up in a home where the parents sacrificed for the needs of their children over theirs. When we marry we take a vow for richer or poorer, in sickneess and in health, for better or for worse till death do us part. This vow is made to God and witnesses. God expect us to maintain this vow. We are living with an Hollywood mentality or influenced by too much soap opera, we can change partners as easy as changing underwear.
God help us!!!

Posted by enness on Sunday, Nov 3, 2013 1:22 AM (EST):

Stephen DeVol: “23 percent of Catholics are divorced and remarried ... and condemned and excluded from communion.”
Receiving the Eucharist does not automatically forgive a sin like living in a state of adultery. It compounds it. There is nothing merciful about neglecting to prevent this where possible.

Posted by enness on Sunday, Nov 3, 2013 1:20 AM (EST):

“Are you speaking from experience or just trying to tell others how to live their lives? What if you are in your 20s or 30s, your spouse left you, and you still want to get married and have a family? Is this wrong to want this?”
-
Abandonment is an injustice, surely a difficult cross to bear, and the abandoned spouse needs/deserves community support (moral and material). Ideally the abandoner would repent and the two would be reconciled. But what else can I tell you? Did anyone bear a greater injustice than our Lord, and is the servant greater than the master?

Posted by enness on Sunday, Nov 3, 2013 1:15 AM (EST):

Boy, the trolls are out in force. Don’t you have anything better to do?
-
GG: “Any children you have in your new marriage are !@#$% in the eyes of the Church.”
That is a bald-faced lie. First of all, no they’re not. Second, there is no such thing in the Church as an “illegitimate” child…such a term is not for human beings.

Posted by nikki Nacht on Saturday, Nov 2, 2013 3:41 PM (EST):

My husband and his first wife got divorced. I wanted to get married in the church, so we married Anglican and attend there. We have 4 children baptized there.

May years late, my husband’s family were able to obtain a Catholic annulment for him and asked wouldn’t I like to get married in the Catholic church now?

No thank you.

Posted by Reality Bites on Saturday, Nov 2, 2013 11:24 AM (EST):

“Corny as it may sound, it wasn’t until I found a relationship with Jesus, true happiness with him, that all those thoughts left my mind. Call it whatever Diamond, I’d much rather be sitting home with a smile on my face knowing I’m loved, than even meet with a human being who has the capacity to be abusive, as you just were. FYI, speaking as someone who unfortunately has experience with this sort of thing, the worst form of violence is not physical, it’s emotional, mental, verbal, i.e. exactly the kind of behavior you just exhibited here, in a public place, under zero provocation, probably the worst kind….”

Guest—you just got hooked on a fictional being that has the same attitude and characteristics as your former abuser, but is supposed to “love” you as you want to be loved. In short, you have been abused by a person so much that you’re displaying my first point. You have an invisible friend that you talk to daily. It’s proof that your “relationship with Jesus” is delusional because a true relationship is based on mutual respect. Jesus (and the Church) won’t “love” you unless you follow “his” rules about sexuality—just the conditions your former partner probably held you to. Your version of Jesus’ “love” is a substitute for loving yourself.

“Back to the subject, the only Catholic purpose of dating is to find someone to have children with, that’s it.”

Anybody (except, of course someone who is infertile for whatever reason) can produce children—including rapists. That’s not the purpose of marriage—again if you and your spouse don’t have mutual respect for each other, you are in an abusive relationship—much like the one you had with your previous relationship. The sad part is that children of such relationships often repeat the cycle.

Think of the marriage vows—each partner promises to “love, honor, and cherish” the other partner “until death do you part.” (unless the word “obey” is still included in the woman’s vow?)

So, basically you married yourself to Jesus—with whom you cannot have children—and written off the sacrament of marriage for the soul purpose of having children.

It makes sense that Catholics are venomously against homosexual “marriage,” because homosexuality is the loving relationship between two people who can’t produce children—exactly your relationship with Jesus.

Posted by Guest on Saturday, Nov 2, 2013 1:57 AM (EST):

In response to Diamond, ‘religious beliefs’ may seem ‘ill’ to the secular world, isn’t it interesting that non-religious beliefs seem pretty sick to us too; spending all one’s time and energy chasing after littles pieces of paper and metal, possessions that rot, turn to dust and mold. On the subject of Catholic dating, I’m not divorced, never married, but I’m at a point where there’s no way I’d even consider going out for coffee with anyone. I spent years running around in circles thinking there was a human being who could ‘make me happy’. Corny as it may sound, it wasn’t until I found a relationship with Jesus, true happiness with him, that all those thoughts left my mind. Call it whatever Diamond, I’d much rather be sitting home with a smile on my face knowing I’m loved, than even meet with a human being who has the capacity to be abusive, as you just were. FYI, speaking as someone who unfortunately has experience with this sort of thing, the worst form of violence is not physical, it’s emotional, mental, verbal, i.e. exactly the kind of behavior you just exhibited here, in a public place, under zero provocation, probably the worst kind. Back to the subject, the only Catholic purpose of dating is to find someone to have children with, that’s it. Once again, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church people, so much time is wasted here discussing things the Church has already decided, in great detail. Ignore the rules at your own risk. I’ll put you on my prayer list Diamond. For the rest of you, why don’t you join us over at comepraytherosary.org, we could always use some help, there are many souls who need conversion and prayers. I’ll agree with you on one point Diamond, I do think it’s crazy to chat with people who are attacking us. Let’s all just walk away as Jesus did, and instructed us to do. Leave these people to their own devices; Jimmy and others like him are no doubt getting paid to drum up controversy, think about it Catholics, haven’t we had enough of these money changers, let’s flip over the tables and move on before they completely take over the Church.

Posted by Diamond on Friday, Nov 1, 2013 9:03 PM (EST):

I would like to propose that religious beliefs be placed in the DSM as a category of mental illness for the following reasons:

(1) Hallucinations - the person has invisible friends who (s)he insists are real, and to whom (s)he speaks daily, even though nobody can actually see or hear
these friends.

(2) Delusions - the patient believes that the invisible friends have magical powers to make them rich, cure cancer, bring about world peace, and will do so eventually if asked.

(3) Denial/Inability to learn - though the requests for world peace remain unanswered, even after hundreds of years, the patients persist with the praying behavior, each time expecting different results.

(4) Inability to distinguish fantasy from reality - the beliefs are contingent upon ancient mythology being accepted as historical fact.

(5) Paranoia - the belief that anyone who does not share their supernatural concept of reality is “evil,” “the devil,” “an agent of Satan”.

(6) Emotional abuse - ­ religious concepts such as sin, hell, cause feelings of guilt, shame, fear, and other types of emotional “baggage” which can scar the
psyche for life.

(7) Violence - many patients insist that others should share in their delusions, even to the extent of using violence.

Posted by lroy on Friday, Nov 1, 2013 5:55 AM (EST):

I can count the number of dates I have had on the fingers of one hand and none since I was in my early 20s, more than 30 years ago.

I am also adopted so there is always a possibility I could fall in love with a half brother however remote that is.

There should be a difference between dating and a couple simply going out for lunch as two friends with no romantic intentions. It’s like how can a female get or become a roommate with another female without looking like two lesbians living together. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Thursday, Oct 31, 2013 11:18 PM (EST):

@Ivana: [“What God is joined together no men can separate.”]
.
So the question for the church is whether God really did join such a couple together? Was is God’s will such a marriage take place or the “will” of unwise people?, immature people?, a partner who was lied to?, a partner who failed to disclose their past prior to becoming married? A hidden past once revealed can change the entire dynamic of ever marrying someone. Things like this are not on the level of adapting to someone’s habit of not putting the cap back on the toothpaste tube.

Posted by Ivana on Thursday, Oct 31, 2013 10:59 PM (EST):

Why would a woman with a husband who beat them and kids regularly, gamble away paychecks, lazy bums who do not support the family, husband who sexually abuse their daughters and rape their wives, chronic alcoholics and potheads who refuse to reform, desertion, abandonment and more, why would anyone want to get married again? I’m sure as Hell I wouldn’t be anxious to re-marry. Who’s going to guarantee the second time with a different man is going to be a bed of roses. Perfect marriage doesn’t exist. The reason why the second marriage works out is because they put more effort into it and it looks bad to go through another divorce, so they make it work. If this effort could have been applied to their first marriage perhaps the marriage could have worked out too. That’s where the Church comes in. Instead of handing out annulments the church should concentrate on offering good christian counseling along with prayers and support to the couples. If all this doesn’t work than the other alternative is a permanent separation and a life as a single person. In this state you’ll be in good standing with the Church and able to receive the Sacraments.
Jesus said: What God is joined together no men can separate, not even the Pope has that authority. A true Catholic will follow the truth and their consciences
as the people of the preceding generation so faithfully have done.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Thursday, Oct 31, 2013 3:25 PM (EST):

@Dan: “Proctor” is a commonly referred title in my local diocese assigned the one member of the tribunal who defends the marriage. I will not dispute your own experience where no defense is actually or rarely given. Quite the opposite is true for people I have personal knowledge of including my own brother’s wife who sought an annulment.
.
Your comments are appreciated. It would be excellent if all clergy were as objective as you seem to be. Some of these cases really are a slam dunk and needn’t take forever to complete.

Posted by Dan on Thursday, Oct 31, 2013 3:11 PM (EST):

Casting Crowns, maybe “Canonically Speaking” will explain his remark but I would ask you: how many cases have you actually seen? Have you ever read the defense of the “Proctor” (not sure where you got that term) for a case such as the ones you listed? I submit that a far more common event is this Defender offering no defense whatsoever. You suggest that people in the Tribunal are “sheltered, pious, inexperienced and never married clergy”? I don’t think I am any of those…

Posted by Casting Crowns on Thursday, Oct 31, 2013 10:48 AM (EST):

@Canonically Speaking: You wrote—[“There is no such thing as a “slam-dunk case”.]
.
SAY WHAT ?? Perhaps you are, in fact, too stuck in the Canon of legalistic church dogma. You want examples of slam dunk cases? Try husbands who beat up their wives and kids regularly, gamble away paychecks, lazy bums who do not support their families, men who sexually abuse their daughters and rape their wives, chronic alcoholics and potheads who refuse to reform, desertion, abandonment and more. Women seeking annulment and compassion from a tribunal of sheltered, pious, inexperienced and never married clergy shouldn’t have wait three years for such “slam dunk” requests for annulment and be charged for it.
.
Oh, yes. And then the “Proctor” who defends the marriage on the tribunal, this is the man who will answer to Jesus for defending the indefensible. At some point WWJD (What would Jesus do?) is more important than anything written in Canon Law by men.

Posted by Portal of Hope on Thursday, Oct 31, 2013 10:35 AM (EST):

“There are signs that Francis may be prepared to untie some longstanding pastoral knots.”

These knots are not merely pastoral ones. JP II stressed that “Neither Scripture nor Tradition recognizes any faculty of the Roman Pontiff for dissolving a ratified and consummated marriage; on the contrary, the Church’s constant practice shows .. that such a power does not exist.” Francis, or any pope for that matter, has zero authority to recognize the new union of a divorced person while his or her spouse still lives.

I find it hard to believe that this type of collective self-deception is the pastoral response Pope Francis is looking for. When we think about his question, “How are we treating the People of God?” we need to remember that people above all have a right to the truth, especially from the Church. Divorced/remarried Catholics should be offered special pastoral care, but this cannot involve grounding them in a comforting blanket of lies, and we also have to be aware that we cannot remove on earth all the temporal consequences of every bad choice, sin or misfortune.

Does it serve the People of God to offer a false compassion that urges them toward living in a state of denial about vows they freely made before God? We all need help to live what is often a difficult, but ultimately redemptive, truth.

I work in a Catholic Worker house ... where many good homeless souls are contending with the pain and suffering of divorce.

We are all sinners. The must be respect for conscience and the human dignity of each and every person. God loves all His children.

In many cases, the relationships were so dysfunctional and abusive and beyond reconciliation ... I have no doubt that these Catholics are eligible for annulment. It would have been a tragedy for children to continue growing up in these toxic environments.”
**************************************************************
You describe a situation that may well call for separation if safety’s at risk.We need to leave the question of annulment to the Church, though.And grounds for annulment are based on what the situation was at the time of marriage, not what transpired years down the road. Later abuse & dysfunction may reflect what was lacking at the time of marriage,but as another commenter stated,we need to leave this for the law to determine.And not our personal feelings.

Correction: not 23 million divorced Catholics ... according to CARA ... that number is 23% of all Catholics in the United States. That’s a little more than 15 million Catholics ... which is not an inconsequential number.

Canonically Speaking ... I agree ... there is no consistency in the tribunal process .... how can there be? ... each case is subjective ... and there is room for conscience. People are not objects.

The problems with the Tribunal process goes much deeper. The pastoral care of 23 million divorced Catholics is not inconsequential.

“If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal security, those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.”

I do not agree that if Pope Francis “wanted to change the law already, he could have.” That is not Pope Francis. His pontificate has been characterized as one of mercy. And he has signaled that clericalism is a serious problem within the Church to be overcome.

There are signs that Francis may be prepared to untie some longstanding pastoral knots, beginning with divorced and remarried Catholics. Under current discipline, those Catholics are unable to receive the Eucharist, a practice that has long been a source of heartache in the trenches.

In his remarks on the plane, Francis signaled interest in the “principle of economy” found in the Orthodox tradition, according to which a second union may be blessed after dispensing from the vows of marriage.

He also said the question has to be looked at in the wider context of the pastoral care of marriage, a theme he said the council of eight cardinals and a future Synod of Bishops will examine. The practice of annulments, he said, “has to be looked at again.”

But first attitudes toward those who make mistakes must change. Francis is calling us to enter into a dialogue and to enter it humbly. When he describes himself as a sinner in the beginning of his interview, he is reminding all of us that we are sinners, as well.

Good post, Jimmy. Truth be told, I didn’t even bother to read ALL of the comments, but let me offer two observations as a canon lawyer.

1) For those of you who have quoted Pope Francis, great! I too love Pope Francis. And I also know that the pope has full, supreme, and immediate power over the entire Church. So, if he wanted to change the law already, he could have. But he hasn’t, at least not yet. If and when he does, great, we’ll follow that. Until then, let’s follow the law.

2) With regard to what Jimmy calls an “ordinary process annulment”, even as clear as certain cases seem to me, I am always surprised that the judges (in various dioceses) see things differently. There is no such thing as a “slam-dunk case”.

Posted by mrscracker on Thursday, Oct 31, 2013 8:29 AM (EST):

Casting Crowns,
Even though my experience with a local “singles,widowed,separated fellowship” was problematic, that doesn’t mean every singles fellowship has the same issues.If your diocese doesn’t sponsor a singles ministry, perhaps you could enquire how to get one started?
Seriously, single adults 35-40 & older are always going to have that “5th wheel” feeling from society in general.Practically speaking,it’s a couples world out there & we can acknowledge that & keep moving forward with a positive attitude.
Our local parish & the folks who are involved in it aren’t so very different from the world at large.If we expect some radical difference or special accommodation , we’ll always be dissapointed.
I’ve found the most enjoyable way to spend my “downtime” is to take classes in things I’m interested in.If you enjoy art, crafts, gardening, foreign language, etc there’s usually a class offered somewhere.Community colleges, local garden centers,craftstores,etc offer a variety of courses.We live in a very rural area, so it involves driving half an hour to the nearest town but I think it’s worth it.You also meet folks that have similar interests & aren’t there just looking for a date or to vent about relationships.Just a suggestion.
God bless.

I work in a Catholic Worker house ... where many good homeless souls are contending with the pain and suffering of divorce.

We are all sinners. The must be respect for conscience and the human dignity of each and every person. God loves all His children.

In many cases, the relationships were so dysfunctional and abusive and beyond reconciliation ... I have no doubt that these Catholics are eligible for annulment. It would have been a tragedy for children to continue growing up in these toxic environments.

There is always hope for recovery from spiritual and mental illness ... there is hope for forgiveness ... with God’s grace.

23 percent of Catholics are divorced and remarried ... and condemned and excluded from communion. That is the reality ... that can not continue to be conveniently ignored. Pastoral care is the Pope’s primary concern ... as it should be. He says not all sins are morally equivalent. And likens pastoral care to triage in a hospital. The annulment system is broken. Something must be done to rectify this injustice.

The problem with moral absolutes is that there are no grey areas ... no room for mercy.

I work in a Catholic Worker house ... where many good homeless souls are contending with the pain and suffering of divorce.

In many cases, the relationships were so dysfunctional and abusive and beyond reconciliation ... I have no doubt that these Catholics are eligible for annulment. It would have been a tragedy for children to continue growing up in these toxic environments.

There is always hope for recovery from spiritual and mental illness ... there is hope for forgiveness ... with God’s grace.

23 percent of Catholics are divorced and remarried ... and condemned and excluded from communion. That is the reality ... that can not continue to be conveniently ignored. Pastoral care is the Pope’s primary concern ... as it should be. He says not all sins are morally equivalent. And likens pastoral care to triage in a hospital. The annulment system is broken. Something must be done to rectify this injustice.

The problem with moral absolutes is that there are no grey areas ... no room for mercy.

Reality Bits ... that is the kind of normative nonsense one comes to expect from hyper-orthodox Catholic Answers.

Pope John Paul II acknowledged to unitive value of sexual relationship within the context of marriage.

“If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal security, those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.”

~ Pope Francis

Posted by Michael Susce on Wednesday, Oct 30, 2013 10:59 PM (EST):

Jimmy, Is one bound to the spouse in case of marital infidelity? If you say no, your argument is invalid. If you say yes, you are contradicting you know Who.

Posted by Reality Bites on Wednesday, Oct 30, 2013 9:04 PM (EST):

Look up Edgardo Mortara—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara

The Church claimed that it had the “right” to take a child from a Jewish family because the child and been “secretly baptized,” After Edgardo was baptized, which was attested to by the servant girl who had performed it, Edgardo was a Catholic in accordance with Catholic law. According to canon law, which was the law of the Papal States, non-Christians could not raise a Christian child, even if the child was their own.

So, in the Church, a lot depends on the meaning of annulment. If one or both spouse(s) “comes out of the closet” as an atheist for example, the Church holds that it has the obligation to take the children, unless the parent(s) repent and return to Catholic faith.

So, Catholic parents who divorce can be thankful that secular law disregards religion, unless there is harm to the child.

Posted by Tyrone Power on Wednesday, Oct 30, 2013 8:37 PM (EST):

Casting Crowns: I am simply agreeing with Ivana’s position. Sounds like you have issues with her. There are lots of reasons people get divorced, but I would say that rarely is it done for the kids sake. Likewise with anulments. I don’t think an anulment makes a kid feel all warm and fuzzy about their parents divorce.

Reality Bites: For one thing, certain types of contraception act as a abortfacient, killing a human being. Homosexual acts are harmful, particularly anal sex. Talk to your proctologist about that. Of course, there is a host of other reason’s why homosexual acts and contrception is harmful.

Posted by Reality Bites on Wednesday, Oct 30, 2013 8:03 PM (EST):

Tyrone: If the Church wasn’t so obsessed with sex, why does it have a problem with contraception and homosexuality? The Church is very concerned about where you put your penis, and why you put it there.

“The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.”

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control

(You should read the twists and turns of “logic” that Catholics use to justify NFP!

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate!

Posted by Casting Crowns on Wednesday, Oct 30, 2013 5:46 PM (EST):

@Tyrone: I am not in that situation, but it’s not quite that cut and dried as you would like to think. For example, was Ivana’s ex a practicing Catholic or only raised Catholic from childhood? Did God really matter to him at all? If he was a non-believer, the marriage was not one of being equally-yoked as St. Paul describes. Was he dishonest before the marriage? Sometimes a partner decides they are not open to having children. How is that a sacred covenant? Ivana didn’t want the divorce, she wanted reconciliation. It was her ex who chose to walk away. Jesus did say divorce is allowed due to sexual immorality.
.
Yes, ideally, no one should divorce. But not every divorced person is driven by self-centered reasons. You cannot know everyone’s story.

Posted by Tyrone Power on Wednesday, Oct 30, 2013 4:52 PM (EST):

Ivana in your last post:
“How can the Catholic Church give an annulment and a blessing to a couple whose natural children will be raised by strangers? An annulments doesn’t make a marriage functional…”

My hat is off to you. I could not have stated it better myself. You are a far greater witness to marriage and children than most. I may be facing the same situation in the not to distant future. If so, I hope to be the witness to marriage that you are.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Wednesday, Oct 30, 2013 4:30 PM (EST):

@mrscracker: Gee, your parish and diocese actually have Singles/Widows & Widower Ministry Leaders? How novel. These people are often the invisible members of the church —totally ignored. You’re there, but you don’t matter until the church needs people to do volunteer work at Bake Sales, Rummage Sales or for men to move heavy furniture and office equipment. I’m not talking about people in their 80’s—I mean anyone over 40+ and unmarried are treated like a 5th wheel.

Posted by ronalvqx on Wednesday, Oct 30, 2013 4:13 PM (EST):

When it comes to arguing towards releasing Mayard upon bail, Northern Location Da Allen Bode explained Mayard constructed relating to $1.Two million in addition to $1.Eight , 000, 000 prior to now two year period for the selling for oxycodone solutions. He stated the authorities hasn’t but gotten to discover the dollars, that could be employed to assistance Mayard run away from. Mayard’s lawyer, Edward Kratt with Ny, talked about his company’s partner besides other family most people woolrich store regarding very happy to offer $200,Five hundred when it comes to property and then their golden years money to assist a connection, and also your “moral suasion” would definitely avoid your pet via running. Kratt furthermore talked about the patient gives further up his or her health drivers license. But yet You actually.Verts. Center Decide Ernest Bianc Woolrich Outlet u, in doubting some sort of discharge with bond, pointed out in which in the past putting a stop to her illegal medications license decided not to prevent Mayard provided by suggesting oxycodone, and the man is apparently preparing to run away anytime real estate agents init woolrich jackets ially charged your ex. Bode stated that as soon as real estate agents imprisoned Mayard, some people identified this individual thousands of dollars throughout dollars, and in his car was indeed baggage, nutrition, a new colder with his or her medicines, as well as dry looking cleaning. Woolrich Outlet If convicted of the charges for conspiracy theory so that you can distribu woolrich arctic parka les oxycodone as well as submitter of your painkiller, Mayard may well withstand A long time in prison.

Posted by Brother Rolf on Wednesday, Oct 30, 2013 4:02 PM (EST):

I read a recent news item, which states that the bishops of the Philippines, in order to stem the tide of Catholic separations and divorces, are enforcing canon 1692. I had never heard of this canon before. Two well-know Jesuits on Catholic radio never heard of this canon:
“If the Philippine civil government creates immoral divorce laws, I pray the Catholic leadership there at least expects Catholics to follow the canon law on separation of spouses. No Catholic should ever approach the civil forum for a divorce or separation without the bishop’s permission. Maybe the bishops of the Philippines, unlike the U.S. Bishops, will provide clear instructions on the parameters of a separation that would be in accord with divine law (canon. 1692).

The bishops of the Philippines might actually correct those who obstinately refuse to follow the moral teaching of the Church by abandoning the marital life for no moral reason. Unfortunately, in the U.S., when one spouse chooses to renege on his or her marital obligations, the Catholic bishops offer no intervention and their tribunals seem all too ready to dish out annulment decisions, wherein they decree that the couples was never really married at all.

Spero columnist Bai Macfarlane is the founder of Mary’s Advocates.”

Posted by Mark on Wednesday, Oct 30, 2013 2:46 PM (EST):

There are a few problems with this.

First, there simply IS a difference in practice between dating divorced Catholics and remarried divorced Catholics, a double standard. Dating divorced Catholics are not actively excluded from communion. Even if one regards it as wrong or imprudent, the same public stigma of “living in sin” is not attached the same way it is after there is a civil marriage or cohabitation. A dating divorcee is usually given the same “don’t ask don’t tell” attitude in church re: adultery that, similarly, dating singles are given re: fornication. This is part of what people see as incoherent in singling it out the divorced and remarried for exclusion instead of just letting them exclude themselves like other mortal sinners are supposed to do.

Second, the concept of the “putative marriage” is rather confused. On the one hand, the Church insists an annulment means it was “nothing at all.” But on the other hand, its moral force is apparently strong enough to receive the benefit of the doubt in such a way that someone could abstain for five years to avoid adultery only to be told, retrospectively, that if they had had sex, it wouldn’t objectively have been adultery after all, “all along.” There is something off here conceptually. Catholic probabilism allows us to act on any “probable” assumption even if the opposite assumption is MORE probable. It seems to me that the annulment concept makes “my marriage is invalid” a “probable” assumption for anyone, given that an annulment could conceivably come through in the future and often does. This is problematic.

Finally, given that the Church allows a couple to continue “as brother and sister”...it’s unclear how you’d get into such an arrangement except by dating.

Posted by Karl on Wednesday, Oct 30, 2013 11:44 AM (EST):

Can you think, when you do not have brains?

Posted by Dan on Wednesday, Oct 30, 2013 10:43 AM (EST):

Legal point: a lack of form process (not even in the Code) is not a “documentary process” (cc. 1686-1688). The former is usually handled in what can be called an “administrative” manner while the latter is a true, judicial process.

Posted by ivana on Wednesday, Oct 30, 2013 8:43 AM (EST):

How can the Catholic Church give an annulment and a blessing to a couple whose natural children will be raised by strangers? An annulments doesn’t make a marriage functional. The selfishness of couples toward the welfare of their children is staggering. Look at the results of today’s young. I’m a divorced Catholic and I don’t believe in annulments for couples with children. At the age of 24 I knew I had to remain single for the rest of my life and raise my son alone for I would not allow a stranger to raise my child. I had hopes for a reconciliation, but he re-married. It hasn’t been easy, but with a strong faith and perseverence I’m making it through. I don’t know of anyone who has died for lack of sex. Where is self control? That energy could be turned into helping people and sick family members.

Posted by Maria on Wednesday, Oct 30, 2013 8:08 AM (EST):

Jimmy does a good job of laying out the reasons for not dating without annulment. Would all those naysayers think that it is OK for a married woman to date while her husband has cancer? Or “might” die, and she wants to be acquainted with others so she can be ready? It’s the same situation. Dating, in our culture, is for finding a spouse. If a person is not free to marry, they’re not free to look for a spouse. Pretty simple, really.

Posted by Deacon Ed Peitler on Wednesday, Oct 30, 2013 3:49 AM (EST):

Let’s make two things abundantly clear:

#1 For all Catholics, their marriages are to be considered valid (i.e. a PERMANENT bond sealed in God’s name) until one of the parties dies.

#2 The State has no power to effect a bond of marriage where Catholics are concerned. Similarly, the State has no power to end a marriage where a Catholic is concerned. Divorce simply does NOT exist for Catholics, despite those in the Church who refer to “divorced Catholics.”

Ladies and gents, do NOT take off those rings; you’re still married. If you do, you’ve drunk the Kool-Aid of secularism.

Hail Mary full of grace the lord is with thee blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death amen

Posted by Ivana on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 10:28 PM (EST):

I would like to know why couples are required to go through several Pre Cana instructions before they are married. Are they been told that marriage is a committment for a lifetime? That a Sacramental Marriage cannot be annulled? Perhaps, the above is not stressed enough. If the couple enter their marriage will full knowledge of the meaming of a Sacramental Marriage they will not stand a chance getting a Tribunal to issue an annulment. I’ve seen men and women leave their spouses and children to marry others even though one of the spouse have hopes for reconciliation and the Church gives them an annulment and destroys all hopes for a reconciliation. Is this just?

Posted by Anniem on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 8:46 PM (EST):

We have a family situation where our son was CLEARLY not married validly even though it took place in a Catholic church with a nuptial Mass. He and his wife were not practicing Catholics for a number of years prior, but went through this wedding just to please us, his parents. We were unaware at the time…She said several times prior to wedding, that IF they stayed married for 5 years, she “might” want to have children. (We heard this in person) Years later he discovered that she was living the lifestyle of a lesbian while he was working elsewhere. The bottom line: he had already given up the practice of the Faith before they married. Now he is “remarried” civilly to a Catholic woman who gave up her Faith to marry him! He refuses to seek an annulment-a huge sorrow for us but which causes us to pray much for the two and their children. Didn’t Pope Benedict XVI emeritus have something to say about two Catholic adults just going through the motions of a valid marriage but with no intention of practicing the Faith, either before or after? This marriage took place in a diocese where the nearby parish priest refused to marry them without counseling, so they went to a parish run by a Religious Order who accommodated them with no problem.

Posted by Tyrone Power on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 8:25 PM (EST):

Godless Goddess: I seem to have failed in making my point. The point I was trying to make is that there is something very wrong with the annulment process.
Not sure how you came to your conclusion about the Church governing my privates, but that really does not seem to apply to my original post. Also, your view that “The Church believes sex should only be practices for producing children” is not what the church teaches at all. You may want to consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church and also Pope John Paul II Theology of the Body. I’m sure that if you read these things you would have a better appreciation for what the Church actually teaches about marriage,sex and the dignity of the human person.

I hear you Dianne ... and agree in principle ... a valid marriage is for life. But the reality is, people make mistakes. Most who apply for an annulment get one ... the marriage was not valid to begin with for one reason or another. The problem lies in the length of time it takes. We have a broken tribunal system. 23 percent of American Catholics have divorced and remarried ... most are excluded from communion ... but go anyway ... or quit the Church.

Before the Council of Trent in 1561, the Church was not in the marrying business. Marriage was consensual ... children, fidelity and social stability were viewed as a benefit of consent ... before the Church abrogated conscience and opened the door for imposition of the normative values of a few elect.

Francis signaled interest in the “principle of economy” found in the Orthodox tradition, according to which a second union may be blessed after dispensing from the vows of marriage.

“This church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people.”

“The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you.”

“If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal security, those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.”

“I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life. God is in everyone’s life. Even if the life of a person has been a disaster, even if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else—God is in this person’s life. You can, you must try to seek God in every human life. Although the life of a person is a land full of thorns and weeds, there is always a space in which the good seed can grow. You have to trust God.”

“How are we treating the people of God?”

~ Pope Francis

Posted by Godless Goddess on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 7:52 PM (EST):

Dianne D - how do you know the Church is the “true” representative of what “God wants for us?” How do you know that the Catholic Church isn’t the Anti-Christ? Satan can make the same claims—how would you know the difference?

“We are not supposed to be narcissistic but charitable to out neighbor. A legal divoce is just that - legal. Render unto Ceasar… A true marriage is more than a legal condition, it is sacred oath between a man, a woman, and God.”

According to your beliefs, God made mankind in his own image—and you will not find a more narcissistic god than Yahweh.

Frankly, I have no problem with the “render unto Cesar” analogy, except that Catholics want to destroy the separation between Church and State—that pisses me off.

When marriage was defined as a life long commitment, the human life span was relatively short: women died in childbirth, lots of men died in religious wars. Until the middle of the 20th Century, life expectancy was around 40-50 at best. Very few people lived much longer.

While it is charmingly romantic to have a lifelong marriage over time (assuming neither spouse dies), people change and may not be happy with the lifestyle they wanted 60 years before. More over, “just because there is snow on the roof doesn’t mean there isn’t fire in the furnace.” If one spouse no longer desires intimate relations, is it reasonable for the other to suffer?

So, wake up and smell the coffee—we are living in the 21st Century, not in 30 A.D.

Posted by Godless Goddess on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 7:35 PM (EST):

Tyrone—it’s all about sex. The Church believes sex should only be practices for producing children they can indoctrinate into the Catholic faith. It also holds that people should marry as a commitment to raising the children in the Catholic faith. It took a while for the Church to accept that couples could separate and even divorce and remarry in the secular world. If you don’t want to “sin,” however, the Church has to approve the annulment of the previous marriage, and then the “remarriage” must be performed before you can have sex.

The Church literally has authority over your private parts and God watches everything, including what you do with your “nether parts.”

Whether you believe in God is your own decision—but are you really going to allow the Catholic rules govern your privates?

Posted by Dianne D on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 7:34 PM (EST):

To Godless Goddess -
The Church doesn’t say anything. It just confirms the way God wants us to live our lives. We are not supposed to be narcissistic but charitable to out neighbor. A legal divoce is just that - legal. Render unto Ceasar… A true marriage is more than a legal condition, it is sacred oath between a man, a woman, and God.

Why does the Church require us to commit a grave offense, something that God hates before we can even question if a marriage is null?

Also, if divorce is a grave offense, why are both parties still in good standing and allowed to receive Eucharist? Surely at least one of the parties is culpable most divorces.

Let’s not forget the kids. They are the ones who really pay the price here. An anullment does not make there pain go away. I would guess it only adds insult to injury.

So you may as well date before the annulment is granted, you’ve already committed a grave offense

Posted by Godless Goddess on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 6:53 PM (EST):

Susan—Basically the Church is saying that if you remarry without the Church declaring your previous marriage annulled, you are committing adultery. Under Catholic rules, the Church is the only authority as to the “validity” of a marriage. As far as it’s concerned, a legal divorce is meaningless and you will be damned to hell, unless you repent and get the Church’s to agree to pretend the 1st marriage was invalid. Any children you have in your new marriage are bastards in the eyes of the Church.

Most priests are fairly liberal. Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden still take communion. Church pews are fairly empty and more Catholics are leaving the Church than converting to Catholicism.

I hope you take more consideration of your choice of religions.

Posted by Aunt Raven on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 6:27 PM (EST):

When we go to confession (“reconciliation”) we say and mean, “. . . I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to do penance, amend my life, and avoid the near occasions of sin.” If we do not sincerely mean and act on these words, we do not obtain forgiveness; we can “fool the priest, but we cannot fool God.”
Prudence tells us that if we are awaiting an annulment, it is an occasion of sin to date anyone. I understand being lonely, however this is where one must seek out friends of the same sex, or groups of people where one will not be in danger of allowing romantic feelings to lead us into emotionally dangerous situations. It is prudent, if one is awaiting an annullment, to have a pet; a creative hobby to give us exercise, a sense of accomplishment, and to prevent us from brooding on our lonliness. The Devil finds work / and romantic distraction / for the idle.
Frequent recourse to the sacrament of reconciliation gives us great graces and encouragement to trust God to sort out our situation; and will strengthen us to avoid dangerous situations which could lead us to sin and even worse, lead another into our sin.

Posted by vanityofvanitys on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 6:08 PM (EST):

To ‘Separated and not Dating’ - - thanks for your opinions of which I am very much in agreement including paying total heed to Blessed Mary at Fatima. You deserve something for your ongoing sacrifice, too. To Ivana: Whether annulments are easy to obtain or not, they still show some real faith and concern on the party in question, that counts for something to be sure. Incidentally, non-anulled spouses are not the only ones who get in the Communion line every Sunday with nary a thought of their present “worthiness,” many more of us are as guilty. I was also a little perplexed by your comment “Many couples are already living together before marriage so they should already know if they are compatible or not.” You almost act as though that’s a good thing? It surely is not and it surely offers no advantage for compatability findings. It is widespread “invincible ignorance” to put it as kindly as one can, words once used by John Paul II in describing widespread artificial contraception and how the priests should more compassionately deal with it in the confessional. Now Pope Francis comes along and is even more compassionate to the ignorant unsuspecting Catholics, both churched and unchurched alike. Boy do we need help. Boy is God merciful.

Posted by Been There on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 6:07 PM (EST):

Are you speaking from experience or just trying to tell others how to live their lives? What if you are in your 20s or 30s, your spouse left you, and you still want to get married and have a family? Is this wrong to want this? If you turn to the Church and attend a Separated/Divorced Catholics group event do you think you are not going to meet others in the same situation as you? What you failed to mention is that a civil divorce must happen before you can receive an annulment. In some States, the divorce itself can take 2 years or more. Then you get to apply for the annulment! I am not advocating sex outside of marriage but wanting to be married and have a family is understandable. And if you are left by a spouse who had no intention of truly being married and committed to you in the first place is it wrong to want another chance and to become acquainted with others who may be in the similar situation while you go through the very lengthy divorce and annulment process? I address these comments mostly as questions on purpose, for you to consider how others might feel. And on a different subject, why is it the “Secret” info club? Why does any of this Catholic information need to be secret?

Posted by Susan on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 5:38 PM (EST):

I am a convert, so I may be missing something. Am I correct in understanding that a divorced person can continue to be in fellowship with the Church until he/she remarried? If so, what is the problem? No one is required to date or remarry. It is a choice. So, if being in a relationship with another person is more important to someone than being in fellowship with Christ, they can make that choice.

Posted by Godless Goddess on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 5:28 PM (EST):

Catholic people can balance between believing in God and breaking all the commandments without difficulty.

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”—Dr. Carl Sagan

Posted by Godless Goddess on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 4:38 PM (EST):

One of the great perks of being atheist is that there are no worries about this kind of crap. We can use contraception, and we acknowledge that sometimes a relationship won’t last forever.

There are many women who have children without getting married. How many priests deny them communion or refuse to baptize the children?

Posted by Nancy D. on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 2:39 PM (EST):

I dated someone who needed the “documentary process” annulment, and regret it very much. On one hand, Jimmy’s words about this reassure me, but on the other hand, I feel like we were setting a bad example to others who might not know he needed that kind of annulment, and needed the “ordinary process” type instead. I pressured him to get the annulment while we were dating and he did, but the relationship didn’t survive. I hope I would not date a divorced person again who did not already have an annulment, just to avoid any possibility of scandal or bad example. It just didn’t seem right to me.

Posted by Dianne D on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 2:10 PM (EST):

What about a single (never married) Catholic and a divorced non-Catholic? How can the Catholic expect and explain to the non-Catholic they can’t ‘date’ until the non-Catholic gets an annulment from the Catholic Church? Not all of dating is a romantic activity. The first part of dating is finding out about each other and deciding whether or not you like each other.

Posted by David G. on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 1:46 PM (EST):

Christopher S, don’t get bent out of shape over these musings. I think you’ll find these articles are written to attract very narrow judgemental viewpoints. As you go through some of responses from National Catholic Register website one may find a lot of responses that reflect an image of God as an authoritarian punisher rather than a merciful God present and acting through a community of faith. One can only hope that some of the obsessive lurkers and the scrupulous have access to good adult catechetics and solid pastoral care.

Posted by Christina on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 1:07 PM (EST):

Separated and Not Dating: Have you considered that what she was referring to might have been the “second” marriages that people enter into? Marriage Tribunals are not infallible, so many of these marriages that she was referring to could be those that her son would actually consider adultery. King Henry VIII had already broken off at that point, and made his own church.

Posted by tg on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 12:28 PM (EST):

Thanks, Jimmy for the article. Mrscracker, good comments.

Posted by Christina on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 12:02 PM (EST):

Stephen, the most merciful thing the Pope could do is make a person choose between their sin, and Jesus. Jesus was specific on this sort of thing. He said to even lust after a woman that is not your wife is to commit adultery. He also said if a man divorces his wife and marries another, he commits adultery. St. Paul speaks of the proper reception of Jesus’ body, which is to be in a state of grace. Adultery is not a state of grace. Therefore, if you are in adultery, you are betraying the Lord by receiving him at communion. You can’t be a good Catholic, and commit adultery, you can however, leave your sin (as he told the woman that the Pharisee wanted to stone) and confess it, receive absolution, and then receive your Lord again. You can’t serve your flesh, and God at the same time.

Ivana, Our Lady said at Fatima many marriages were not marriages in the eyes of God. In 1917! So it is possible the annulment process may be refined to reflect the reality that many of them are not truly marriages. Perhaps ‘farce’ is not the correct word, but they reflect the reality that marriages are not being entered with true Catholic understanding.

I think even if these things were said in pre-Cana more clearly, the cultural education we all receive (ie. the throwaway mentality, the immediate gratification mindset) prevents many from being mature enough to enter marriage properly. They just don’t get it, even if you make them repeat the concepts word for word.

All that said, Even if you think you can get an annulment, don’t date! Nothing can replace being at peace with God. This was a great article. (ps. i am separated, not seeking an annulment, and not dating)

“This church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people.”

“The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you.”

“If the Christian is a restorationist, a legalist, if he wants everything clear and safe, then he will find nothing. Tradition and memory of the past must help us to have the courage to open up new areas to God. Those who today always look for disciplinarian solutions, those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal security, those who stubbornly try to recover a past that no longer exists they have a static and inward-directed view of things. In this way, faith becomes an ideology among other ideologies.”

“I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life. God is in everyone’s life. Even if the life of a person has been a disaster, even if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else—God is in this person’s life. You can, you must try to seek God in every human life. Although the life of a person is a land full of thorns and weeds, there is always a space in which the good seed can grow. You have to trust God.”

“How are we treating the people of God?”

~ Pope Francis

Posted by Lisa on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 11:43 AM (EST):

Stephen, you are behind the times. CDF already announced there would be no change in discipline of communion. As to Pope Francis, from what I have read of his writings in other books, is that his comments about mercy are that the divorced/remarried without annulment should not be treated as social pariahs, as they used to be not too long ago and particularly in some very conservative societies. The US is already very progressive (and in some instances way too much, as in the sad case mrscracker describes) in this area so I think we probably will not see a big change.

When Pope Francis says ‘mercy’, I don’t know why everyone assumes he intends that church laws change. Mercy means kindness, concern, etc.. As an example, he was opposed to some priests who refused to baptize the child of an unwed mother. That is the type of mercy he means, not that suddenly anyone can do what they want.

I guess people hear what they want.

Posted by Ivana on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 11:35 AM (EST):

The Catholic annulment is a farce. Everyone I know who got divorced not only get one but sometimes two annulments. Many remarry outside the church and still continue been a good Catholic and get in line every Sunday with their new spouses for Holy Communion. The clergy never speaks of the grave sin to re-marry outside the church. There are women and men out there who are separated and one of the spouses do not want an annulment hoping that some day one or the other will come to their senses and reconcile. Married couples should alway leave a door open even in their late years. The church by giving annulments closes the door shut for the hope of reconciliation. What I don’t understand is why couples who go to Pre-Cana program are not been told about the meaning of Sacramental Marriage and that it’s a lifetime committment. Many couples are already living together before marriage so they should already know if they are compatible or not. Annulments should be very rare as it used to be.

Posted by David on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 11:29 AM (EST):

Jimmy,

Very Good! And well explained!

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 11:27 AM (EST):

Stephen,
Welcome & mercy are needed for sure.Messing about with Christ’s teachings would be another matter.Jesus was very explicit.He wasn’t explicit on a number of other things, but he sure was on marriage.
And most of the impoverished women with children where we live never were married to begin with.The policy that wreaks havoc on families is more the one that causes single moms to lose their housing voucher if a male is present in the home.

Twenty three percent of Catholics are divorced and remarried ... many leave a Church that excludes them from communion and does not welcome them, show mercy and forgiveness. There is no evidence that coerced celibacy is an effective pastoral response.

Of those living below the poverty line ... only six percent of women with children who remarry ... sixty three percent of women with children who do not remarry. Policies can and do have unintended consequences.

There are signs that Francis may be prepared to untie some longstanding pastoral knots, beginning with divorced and remarried Catholics. Under current discipline, those Catholics are unable to receive the Eucharist, a practice that has long been a source of heartache in the trenches.

In his remarks on the plane, Francis signaled interest in the “principle of economy” found in the Orthodox tradition, according to which a second union may be blessed after dispensing from the vows of marriage.

He also said the question has to be looked at in the wider context of the pastoral care of marriage, a theme he said the council of eight cardinals and a future Synod of Bishops will examine. The practice of annulments, he said, “has to be looked at again.”

But first attitudes toward those who make mistakes must change. Francis is calling us to enter into a dialogue and to enter it humbly. When he describes himself as a sinner in the beginning of his interview, he is reminding all of us that we are sinners, as well.

Wow…what a wonderfully skitzophrenic Jimmy… One day he’ll tell you there is no mortal sin for the ignorant and the next, he’s telling the married and yet not annulled it is a sin to date. Jimmy, really? Didn’t Francis tell all you knuckleheads to stop your obsessions??? According to the Roman Pontiff’s own admission, the biggest problems in the Church you should be concerned with are his: The unemployment of the World’s Youth and the loneliness of the elderly.

Get with it Jimmy!

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Oct 29, 2013 10:06 AM (EST):

Hopefully, widowed/separated/singles fellowships in other dioceses differ, but my limited experience was that the members didn’t much care about Church guidelines or pre-annulment dating.They just remarried without an annulment.After seeing several couples in our group remarry this way, I asked the single ministries leader if everyone had access to Church teachings on annulments, or maybe we could do more to help folks understand the process. He blew up & went off in an email rant about being judgemental,his own failed marriage,his sister’s failed marriage, how he’d found Christ outside the Catholic Church,etc.,etc.
So, the message I got wasn’t that folks didn’t know or have access to Church teachings, they just preferred to ignore them.And that people can have painful experiences that affect their decisions & ability to lead a Catholic group.Also that as an orthodox, widowed Catholic I should be wary about singles groups, even if sponsored through the diocese.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant pastor or seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith. Eventually, he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is a Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to This Rock magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."